FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 16 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SURJIT SINGH, AKA Bhagat Singh, No. 12-70850
Petitioner, Agency No. A097-582-095
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
SURJIT SINGH, AKA Bhagat Singh, No. 12-71656
Petitioner, Agency No. A097-582-095
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
SURJIT SINGH, AKA Bhagat Singh, No. 12-72524
Petitioner, Agency No. A097-582-095
v.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
SURJIT SINGH, AKA Bhagat Singh, No. 12-73439
Petitioner, Agency No. A097-582-095
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted July 10, 2014
San Francisco, California
Before: N.R. SMITH and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and PIERSOL, Senior
District Judge.**
1. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) had jurisdiction to adjudicate
Singh’s September 2011 and May 2012 motions to reopen. Singh filed his one
allowed motion to reopen under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5). This motion was denied
by the immigration judge and, after appeal, dismissed on the merits by the BIA.
**
The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Dakota, sitting by designation.
2
Singh then filed a petition for review of the BIA’s dismissal to this court, which we
denied. See Singh v. Holder, No. 08-70414, 2009 WL 567975 (9th Cir. March 6,
2009). Thus, the BIA issued the last decision on the merits in that case. Therefore,
jurisdiction properly was vested with the BIA for Singh’s second and third motions
to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel and changed country
conditions in India. See Euceda Hernandez v. Holder, 738 F.3d 1099, 1101-02
(9th Cir. 2013).
2. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motions to reopen
and motions for reconsideration on ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Even
assuming that Singh did not have to comply with Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N.
Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), he did not establish due diligence in filing his claim after
discovering his prior counsel’s fraud. See Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 679
(9th Cir. 2011).
The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to
reopen and to reconsider based on changed country conditions in India. The record
does not compel a finding that country conditions materially changed since Singh’s
previous proceeding in June 2006. See Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996
(9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3